Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Busy Morning in Hillaryland

Senator Clinton just walked out of a private meeting with the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is comparison shopping among likely 2008 candidates, sitting also with Senators Obama, Dodd, and Biden today.

(Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

“Well I’m delighted that Rev. Sharpton is here today to talk about issues that are important to our country,” Mrs. Clinton said as they stood together in a Senate hallway. “His commitment to the 21st century civil rights agenda is one that I share.”

“I’m very happy my hometown senator is in the race,” Mr. Sharpton said.

Mrs. Clinton declined to take questions and zipped back into a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq, while Mr. Sharpton hung back with reporters for a few minutes – yet, sadly, he watched his words.

Asked who he favored among the Democrats, he said, “We’re talking” Asked if Mr. Obama was the “sizzle” and Mrs. Clinton was the “substance” in the field, he responded, “I don’t know.” He said that the conversations were focused on criminal justice issues and Hurricane Katrina, among other things.

Earlier this morning, Mrs. Clinton received a standing ovation as a keynote speaker before the U.S. Conference of Mayors – no roars or cheers, but they were on their feet.

Support from city and town mayors is an essential building block for a presidential campaign; Mrs. Clinton has built strong ties to many mayors in New York, some of whom met with her on Wednesday. Mayor Jerry Jennings of Albany said this morning that she would aggressively reach out to mayors nationwide, and he noted that Senator Barack Obama was invited to a conference event last night but did not show up.

“That was not a good move by Obama – you gotta have the mayors,” said Mr. Jennings, a Clinton supporter who said he expected almost all elected officials in New York to back the senator’s bid.

Mayor R.T. Rybak of Minneapolis, an Obama ’08 supporter and an admirer of Mrs. Clinton, described her as the likely Democratic establishment candidate in the race and predicted that most mayors would sign on with her.

“I think she’s great on our issues, she has great judgment and experience,” said Mr. Rybak, who supported presidential candidates Bill Bradley in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004. “The same is true of Obama. What makes him special is that he has the real ability to inspire our cities and inspire new voters.”

In her remarks to the mayors, she had a funny riff – file it under the Deptartment of Humanizing Hillary header – about the phony political-speak between federal, state, and city officials who talk about “partnerships” – lowering her voice (to sound, frankly, like tough-talking men) and satirizing the mumbo-jumbo about “partnering” as a substitute for real action.

“I want to give you the support you need to make the decisions important to your cities,” she said to applause. ‘When something happens, people aren’t going to call my office or the governor’s office – they’re going to call your office, and the fire department, and the police.”

She voiced her support for the federal cops program that her husband championed, and for new technology to improve radio communication between city, police, fire, and emergency officials. She also said she continued to support a version of the 9/11 Commission to look into the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. And she sketched out a robust government role on issues on the mayors’ agenda.

“We need a national energy policy, we need a national environmental policy, we need to move away from the stale debate over free trade and fair trade to smart, pro-American trade,” she said.

Creepy warnings to Barack disguised as campaign advice from the mayor of Albany?…gimme a break! As if Hillary hasn’t already made backroom deals with the Democratic leadership of New York. We’ve seen enough of this from W., it’s time for a breath of fresh air. Obama in ’08.

Regardless of Mr. Cohn’s above statements, as far as the law is concerned, Whitewater has been a dead horse since 2003 at the latest. Though I’m by no means a Hillary Clinton supporter, I would like to see this remain an intelligent debate over the true merits and electibility of each candidate rather than 30 year. That being said, I see the Whitewater legacy being heavily played against the Senator if she manages to get nominated. I’d just like to see it rationally considered, rather than simply using it to smear her.

Whatever the case, it’s remarkably early to be seeing this level of election coverage, or this level of campaigning. I think Americans really do have short memories, so are primary voters going to care about all this posturing come New Hampshire ’08?

Here is the part where I go on my broken record analysis. Theme? Hillary is not electable. Not because she is a woman, but because she is a Northeastern senator whose baggage burns bridges with southern and Midwestern voters. It is no accident that the last two Democrats elected president were southern Governors. Hillary’s name recognition is high, but her massively un-budging negative numbers are a force of nature, and her stance on the Iraq War doesn’t bode well for creating the kind of sharp contrasts she needs.

Senator Obama is a better choice. He contrasts nicely with John McCain. And his lack of experience can be finessed.

Governor Bill Richardson is a clear winner, but without a big hug from the media, his slog is long and hard.

Re: CC from LA’s comment: following an administration whose competence is questioned widely and openly, any suggestion that Senator Obama’s lack of experience can be “finessed” goes beyond wishful thinking.

The point being, she was caught in a big lie in public, with cold hard evidence. The Castle Grande billing records weren’t found buried in some closet in the White House residence. Rather they were found lying in broad daylight on a table with her fingerprints on them.

Perhaps Mr. Turkenkopf does not feel that honesty, or at least the appearance of honesty are relevant to judging credentials for leadership. IF that is the case, then I accept his assessment that my bringing up this tawdry episode is a “smear”.

However, if one accepts the premise that honesty, or at least the appearance of honesty is a necessary prerequisite for leadership, then the observation I’ve made cuts to the essence of leadership & directly assesses this individuals fundamental qualifications for the presidency.

With that said, I’ll allow others on this blog to read the exchange & draw their own conclusions. I, for one, am flabergasted that the american people could seriously consider such an individual for the oval office.

“un-budging negatives” ??? what polls are you reading. She is consistently in the mid 50s on positives and the low 40s or high 30s in negatives. its okay to hate her and you are entitled to your own opinion, but as senator moynihan used to say, you aren’t entitled to your own facts. as for the war in iraq, all she did was join most of the senate in giving the president some slack to negotiate but after it started nobody was more vociferous in criticizing its shortcomings, for the soliders, their families and on the ground. and nobody did it more credibly, from her seat on armed services. smear her all you like, and im not sure if i will vote for her, but why not stick to real facts, not remembered lines from uninformed blogs or talk radio hosts, ok?

Coulter, I have to agree with you. Mrs. Clinton’s negatives are too high, too early. Outside of the northeast she is a polarizing figure. Obama is the better choice. For those who didn’t believe an African-American could win, they need only look to the substantial support he’s drawing from Kerry’s camp. Jesse Jackson never had a chance and certainly not this level of support. All that aside, at the end of the day for some of these “fence sitters” it’s only a ruse. Sharpton won’t be able to support anyone other than Obama if he continues with a credible campaign. That’s a race issue and it has a lot to do with Sharpton’s constituency. He and others can talk a good game, but they can’t afford not to be on that train– sadly, even if he loses. Sure, people should choose who to support on the issues. But this is the political reality of M.L.King Drive not the beltway stuff.

I agree with Charles Coulter of LA who describes his “Hillary is not electable” mantra as “broken record analysis.” But that analysis has not only become a broken record, it’s intellectually and poitically bankrupt. Hey folks, we’re not in the 1990s anymore. All the Whitewater, Travelgate, “how many times is Hillary gonna change her hairstyle?” nonsense is a decade old and very, very tired now. Now we have a bloodsucking unwinnable war that’s disgracing our nation around the world, a certified warming planet, a shockingly incompetent and unconcerned Administration who nearly bankrupted the nation, etc. The American poeple are ready to be talked to by ANYONE who’s genuinely smart, capable, and concerned about them. Hillary is gonna look a lot diffrent to people this time around. Wait till she really gets going out there on the campaign trail — in the parking lots and school auditoriums and the churches. She’s the second best “retail campaigner” in the country. And she’s gonna be traveling with the BEST one we’ve ever seen — her husband. Just try and stop her. This woman is going to be our next President. And I frankly can’t wait until that day.

People of faith from all walks have been led by the nose by political leaders for far too long.
They should wise up and start educating themselves on the Political issues rather than voting on what may be termed WEDGE ISSUES such as abortion and gay rights etc, they are simple being manipulated based on thier religious conviction by very very smart politicians for personal gain.

Anyone who says that Whitewater, Travelgate, and the former First Lady’s changing hairstyles will be irrelevant to the ’08 campaign must have slept through the ’04 campaign. I fear that Sen. Clinton, for whom I have great respect, will succumb to the same swiftboating tactics the Republican machine used on Kerry. If she doesn’t succumb, the best she will do is eke out a 51% victory.

On the other hand, with Obama at the head of the ticket, ’08 could become a real Democratic landslide due to his ability to rally new voters and swing disillusioned Republican moderates to our side. The fact that he has been in the Senate for only two years (as opposed to Clinton’s six) doesn’t mean he’s inexperienced. Both Clinton and Obama have the intelligence and gravitas to be terrific presidents, but only Obama has the charisma to be a terrific candidate.

Hillary may indeed have a problem with some Southern voters due to her being seen by some as a “baggage laden” Northeastern senator. I also think that Obama’s ethnicity will play against him in some of those same quarters. Look no further than the last election in Tennessee. that said, I still think that they are both electable but Hillary moreso based on experience. I also think that the breath of fresh air that the country needs can come from Hillary as well, because she’s a woman. Wishing for the best from either candidate, we would have models of power and competence that would challenge privately held beliefs here and abroad.

The idea that Obama’s lack of experience can be “finessed” is not an appealing reason to vote for him. I think that many Americans are tired of having thier politicians “finessed” and being governed by individuals who lack necessary skills. Isn’t eight years of a less then capable leader with behind the scenes politicians running the show long enough? Hillary is a proven politician.

(1) The dislike of Senator Clinton does not always stem from the events during her husband’s term. They often stem from the fact that

(a) When she opens her mouth on any subject should sounds more pre-programmed than my computer

(b) On controversial matters, she never takes a position until all of the Democrats AND several Republicans have already done so and then she still equivocates. That is a chicken-hearted follower – not a leader.

(c) Who can tell what she really believes or propoases? She doesn’t know until the polls and her Senatorial peers tell her.

If she had been anyone other the wife of a former President, the media wouldn’t have given her the time of day the past 6 years as she is such a zero in the area of policy intiatives.

(2) Senator Obama is a better choice. He contrasts nicely with John McCain. And his lack of experience can be finessed.

— Posted by Charles Coulter – Los Angeles

A “CHOICE” based upon what??? How can you ‘choose’ when one knows nothing about him based upon his record??

in the US Senate less than 2 years before he decided he was fit to be POTUS?? Well, guess we know he has one whopping ego!!

Fiddling about in a state legislature for a few years? And if that is the criteria, there are probably 10,000 people with the same experience level.

His ‘experience’ in never wining any tough election – only the walk-overs?

If what you want is someone who is great at reciting general principles and has a zero record of actually initating, creating and implementing public policy, well, I guess that is type of choice. I wouldn’t hire a secetary who had no experience at the more demandng tasks, had only done an internship and couldn’t demonstrate the needed skills and knowledge- no matter how good they were at being able to list off what the job qualifications and duties are and speak in theoretical generalities.

Anyone who ‘commits’emtionally or financially to any candidate this early is reacting emotionally rahter than on reflective thought and anlysis. t is a year or more to the primaries. Wait and listen and think about it. This is not a popularity vote for homecoming queen based upon superficial appearanaces and appeal. Trusting the marketing advisers packing these cnadidates and the media who need to whip up excitment is not a good decision.

Al Gore made it possible for Hillary to be Senator. He drew far, far more votes in New York than she did.
Lest we forget, his coattails saved her and her carpet bagger image. If Gore hadn’t carried New York so decisively, Hillary would have returned to Little Rock and resumed her role on the board of Walmart. Gore is far more experienced, far more anti-Iraq and no one can deny that he has always been on the liberal vanguard. We have had enough triangulation for the next century. Triangulation is a policy without any fundamental morality — it is the middle of nothing but winning. It is time we have leaders like Lincoln and Washington who believed in more than their own personal ambitions. Unbridled ambition is not pretty. If we cant draft Gore, anyone but Hillary is preferable.

Experience is used as a criteria by hacks. What international experience did Clinton, a backward state’s governor with almost the lowest education standards in the nation. Quite the opposite, sometimes lack of experience is preferred to hacks with no vision but their own personal agrandisement.
Obama is exactly what we need now. He would have a powerful voice in the muslim world and we need that if we are to avoid a fatal conflict in that region.
Better Obama’s new voice than HRC’s hackneyed rants.

Hillary Clinton on the democratic ticket will be the glue that fastens the social conservatives to Rudy Giuliani. You can count on that.

Ordinarily, they’d find his stands on abortion, gay rights, and gun control revolting. Without Hillary in the race, they’d probably just stay home.

But the thought of Hillary in the White House with all the lies, mendacity, and other baggage she brings with her will give Rudy Giuliani (who actually IS a leader) the electoral clout as well as the moral authority & simple CHARACTER to kick her all the way back to the brownie kitchen in Little Rock. The social conservatives won’t be voting for Rudy, they’ll all be out voting against Hillary. The tidal wave against her will go out of every church in the land, even though it will swing things in favor of a social “liberal”.

You want a republican president for the next 4 years? Give Hillary the democratic nomination.

What needs to be explained to Americans eager for change in direction at home and abroad is whether or not Senator Clinton’s candidacy is simply an extension of the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton? governance that has predominated in the United States since 1989. The consequences include military involvement in Panama, the Gulf, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq plus deterioration of physical and human environment. There are other seeming collaborations between the Bush and Clinton families that require explanation. For example, the awarding by the first Clinton administration of substantial contracts to Halliburton, headed by Bush minion Richard Cheney, of work previously done by the Army Corps of Engineers, the dramatic sending of little Elia back to Cuba with consequent inflammation of the Florida Cuban vote embarrassing Albert Gore and then the somnolence of the Department of Justice during the manipulation of the vote by Republicans in Florida. Also, the retention by President Clinton of Bush patronage appointees such as Linda Tripp of Monica Lewinsky fame and of George W. Bush of Clinton patronage jobholders, such as prominent Westside Reform Democrat former State Senator Franz S.J. Leichter.

Senator Clinton has been sounding lately as though the chain may be broken and has been quite critical of Bush policies. However, some explanation should be offered for a well-written article in the New York Times by Mike Mcintire and Raymond Hernandez, April 12, 2006 containing the following excerpts:

“Finally, in November, Mrs. Clinton pulled President Bush aside during the opening of her husband’s presidential library in Arkansas to press Corning’s case. ”She explained the issue and she asked the president to be personally involved,” the person said.
“Mr. Bush told her he would look into the matter, aides to Mrs. Clinton said. The United States trade representative’s office and the Department of Commerce also pressed the Chinese to lift the tariff. By December, the Chinese government had reversed its decision and lifted the duty. Corning officials credited Mrs. Clinton’s work with making a difference.
“The company and its employees contributed $137,000 from the time she was elected in 2000 through the end of 2005.”
Certainly the presence of President Bush at an event by invitation such as opening of the Clinton Library and his willingness to assist Senator Clinton on matters affecting important constituents indicated at that time a friendly political relationship as late as last April. This may have changed.
Assurances by the Senator that there’ll be no repeat of the failure to investigate last-minute pardons, such as those granted by George H. W. Bush to the perpetrators of Iran-Contra, would be welcome. This would go a long way towards clearing the air and assuring the American people that her administration would not be a continuation of the previous 16 years.

This article hardly goes into enough for my interests – but religion is on the table (pace AJ Melbourne). Al Sharpton, being a religious man – but one with social ethical issues around historical civil rights and modern injustices like Katrina relief. Bush beat Kerry largely because Bush had a religious connection with enough Americans over personal (moral) issues (abortion and marriage.) As far as I’m concerned, social ethicists belong in the White House, personal choice moderators do not.

I want to see the class and race justice issues of Katrina named and adressed; I want to see gluttony of the world’s oil quieted for new energy research; I want to see global warming buckle over at a new commitment to the environment; I want to see the upper class come out of their cryogenicly billionated slumbers; I want to see the other classes invested in a new economics with real opportunity; I want to see diplomatic relations open up tables of conversation with all willing global comminity members….

these democrats are fresh faces – and religion does need to be a part of this race!

Replying to the poster who noted that Obama’s lack of experience could be finessed: do you really want that? The war in Iraq is important – it would be negligent to not thoroughly examine a candidate’s experience in dealing with international issues. I want to have an idea of his foreign policy ability, at the very least, before I vote for him. If it’s not there, voters should know that going in. It would be tragic to express confidence in Obama’s ability to lead us out of Iraq, only to discover in 2010 or 2011, he doesn’t have the know-how to make it happen. (Which can be said of Hillary as well, sitting on a committee does not equal ability) I am keeping an open mind, but I would like to see his camp address this concern, not gloss over it.